Spheroidal Foci and POPS?

[alexjrgreen]

Keep in mind that the experiment is a pulsed one and that it does not produce much light.

That's in operational mode. This is a test with Helium fluorescence to show up the electrons in the wiffleball.

I do see the "oscillations" and the Indrek surface. But without data one must retain the possibility that we are seeing what we want to see.

The "oscillations" in the coil centres are surprisingly stable. The electrons are moving but the surface stays fairly still.

Bear in mind that there's only one picture of WB7 on the website. Given the number of wiffleball deniers out there, what would you choose to show?

[Art Carlson]

Bear in mind that there's only one picture of WB7 on the website. Given the number of wiffleball deniers out there, what would you choose to show?

What is a whiffleball denier?

[alexjrgreen]

Bear in mind that there's only one picture of WB7 on the website. Given the number of wiffleball deniers out there, what would you choose to show?

What is a whiffleball denier?

viewtopic.php?p=15979#15979

Basically, there is no whiffle ball theory, only some handwaving with manifest inconsistencies. On the experimental side, there is no published, robust evidence that anything unusual is happening at all. What are we doing here?

Perhaps it was your comment that drove the choice of picture...

Thanks

[Mumbles]

What is a whiffleball denier?

Isn't a wiffleball denier a pitcher with a wicked curve, who can prevent the batter from ever hitting, striking them out, and winning for their team?

(Sorry for the morning sarcasm, I just had to do it!)

Be Safe
Mumbles

[MSimon]

Keep in mind that the experiment is a pulsed one and that it does not produce much light.

That's in operational mode. This is a test with Helium fluorescence to show up the electrons in the wiffleball.

No magnetic field no wiffle ball. No HV. No oscillations.

The HV supply they have is a pulsed supply (last I heard).

If this shows everything you claim and that I think I see it is a picture taken by a HS camera during a pulsed test.

[chrismb]

I would think a 'wiffleball' denier is a parent who refuses to play wiffleball with their kids?

I'll sign up to being a wiffleball denier so Art doesn't feel targetted!

[alexjrgreen]

I'll sign up to being a wiffleball denier so Art doesn't feel targetted!

Good man. I've been giving him a hard time...

...but only because he's so talented. If the Polywell produces net energy, the person who explains how it works is probably going to get a Nobel prize.

[Art Carlson]

Bear in mind that there's only one picture of WB7 on the website. Given the number of wiffleball deniers out there, what would you choose to show?

What is a whiffleball denier?

viewtopic.php?p=15979#15979

Basically, there is no whiffle ball theory, only some handwaving with manifest inconsistencies. On the experimental side, there is no published, robust evidence that anything unusual is happening at all. What are we doing here?

Perhaps it was your comment that drove the choice of picture...

If a "wiffleball denier" is someone who vocally admits to not knowing what the term is supposed to mean, then "the number of wiffleball deniers out there" is approximately 1.

As far as I can tell, when Bussard talked about "whiffle ball mode", he was refering to a (possibly hypothetical) operating state of a polywell plasma wherein the particle losses are on the order of several times n*c_s*rho_e^2. Neither he nor Rick Nebel ever published quantitative data on the loss rates in any polywells, so it is hard to tell if whiffle balls for them are an observation or a point of faith. I am on record as expecting the quantitative loss rate of any polywell to be at least on the order of several times n*c_s*rho_e*R.

What I would now like to know is why you think this or any photograph might be considered by anyone to be evidence for or against a particular value for the particle loss rate? From this photograph, what quantitative particle loss rate do you deduce?

[chrismb]

If a "wiffleball denier" is someone who vocally admits to not knowing what the term is supposed to mean, then "the number of wiffleball deniers out there" is approximately 1.

I presume a wiffle ball is meant to be where the magnetic surfaces are progressively pushed back by increasing diamagnetism in the ionised volume (I resist the term 'plasma' as it is meant to be a radially polarised composition of Te<<Ti, so is more a 3D ion gun) so that it ultimately forms a quasi-spherical magnetic 'confinement' surface [the wiffleball].

I do not believe this can happen, for very similar reasons to why toroidal magnetic surfaces collapse, and that is because of the transient and capricious transportation of charge within the volume that is not stabilised by any [physically fixed] central electrode structures. It is probably this conclusion that lead the Russians to their Galatea designs (which are characterised by a mgnetically screened electrode).

[alexjrgreen]

What I would now like to know is why you think this or any photograph might be considered by anyone to be evidence for or against a particular value for the particle loss rate?

A low vacuum with some Helium in it is a standard laboratory technique for showing electron paths by fluorescence, so this picture shows where the electrons are. The electrons are clearly confined in a shape consistent with the work done by Indrek, Icarus and kcdodd.

You can see the electron losses - represented by a light fan-shaped dusting from the centres of the coils and more complex wisps at the corners.

From this photograph, what quantitative particle loss rate do you deduce?

You can count the pixels... Certainly less than 1 percent.

The picture is broadly consistent with Rick's claims.

[alexjrgreen]

I resist the term 'plasma'

Happy to go with that until we have a better understanding.

[Art Carlson]

What I would now like to know is why you think this or any photograph might be considered by anyone to be evidence for or against a particular value for the particle loss rate?

A low vacuum with some Helium in it is a standard laboratory technique for showing electron paths by fluorescence, so this picture shows where the electrons are. The electrons are clearly confined in a shape consistent with the work done by Indrek, Icarus and kcdodd.

You can see the electron losses - represented by a light fan-shaped dusting from the centres of the coils and more complex wisps at the corners.

I thought you said the light emission was proportional to the electron density (integrated along the line of sight, of course). Even if could tomographically unfold the spatial information despite the lack of symmetry, to calculate a loss rate you need a velocity. Where do you get that from a photo? For a quantitative analysis of fluorescence I would also expect to need some information (or assumptions) about the electron velocity distribution (as a function of position).

Frankly, all I see is a central blob - no surprise - and another blob that seems to be just outside the geometrical center of one of the coils. That doesn't make sense in either Rick's picture or mine. If it were my scientific reputation on the line, I would go to some lengths to rule out an artifact.

From this photograph, what quantitative particle loss rate do you deduce?

You can count the pixels... Certainly less than 1 percent.

1 percent?! 1 percent of what? Did you know that particle loss rate is measured in particles per second? Of course, to answer the whiffleball question, you need to normalize the loss rate to n*c_s*rho_e^2, so you will also need to say something about the density, the electron energies, and the magnetic field. So I repeat my question. How do you read all those things from a photograph?

The picture is broadly consistent with Rick's claims.

And with mine.

[alexjrgreen]

I thought you said the light emission was proportional to the electron density (integrated along the line of sight, of course).

You're putting words into my mouth.

Even if could tomographically unfold the spatial information despite the lack of symmetry, to calculate a loss rate you need a velocity. Where do you get that from a photo?

Helium fluorescence lasts about 100 ns, so you're looking at a time slice.

[D Tibbets]

Helium fluorescence lasts about 100 ns, so you're looking at a time slice.

Perhaps the fluorescence of a single heluim atom lasts a brief time, but the picture is a summation of many gazillions of fluorescing events spread out over time and area, only limited by the shutter speed of the camera ( and the confined volume of course. It says nothing about flows directly. Some assumptions can be applied for some qualitative conclusions.
I wonder, if the camera was positioned so hat a cusp was seen in crossection at right angles from it's origin, so that the proportions are not distorted, a graphic measurement could determine the realitive sizes of the cusp openings compared to the total surface area of the Wiffleball sphere. A comparison with a low electron current image could be enlightening. Comparing these images with electron gun currents, B-field strengths,potential, neutron production, etc could give results that validate predictions without more sophisticated plasma measurements.

In any case, some links concerning Wiffleballs:

http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/EMC2 ... eakage.pdf

http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/EMC2 ... lywell.pdf



http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/2 ... 0Paper.pdf


Page 4 of the last link . No details, but experimental evidence is claimed. Also, noted is a deemphasis on the critical importance of the Wiffleball from an energy balance perspective due to recirculation.

"Thus, all of the individual physics issues and effects required
to make the concept work HAVE been proven by the
extensive experimental tests made since 1994 in the EMC2
R&D program. These include:
- The WB cusp trapping effect (explained further below;
WB-2,3,4,5), its physics and numerical rates.
- The need for electron recirculation through all cusps of
the machine, so that cusp electron flow is not a loss
mechanism.
The consequent elimination of the WB trapping factor
as a measure of “losses“ it is simply a measure of
density ratios inside and outside the machine."


Dan Tibbets

[Art Carlson]

"Thus, all of the individual physics issues and effects required
to make the concept work HAVE been proven by the
extensive experimental tests made since 1994 in the EMC2
R&D program. These include:
- The WB cusp trapping effect (explained further below;
WB-2,3,4,5), its physics and numerical rates.

"Further below" we find this:

When beta = unity is
achieved, it is possible to greatly increase trapped electron
density by modest increase in B field strength, for given
current drive. At this condition, the electrons inside the
quasi-sphere “see“ small exit holes on the B cusp axes,
whose size is 1.5-2 times their gyro radius at that energy and
field strength. ... Thus, this has been called Wiffle Ball (WB)
confinement ...

This is the only "numerical rate" I can find anywhere. His wording in the first quote suggests that this loss rate "HAS been proven by experimental tests." But the wording and context of the second quote sounds more like that is his model, which must still be compared to experiments. That is what I find frustrating (or worse) about Bussard. He is constantly suggesting things without stating them clearly. I tend to the interpretation that "1.5-2 times" comes from a model because from the descriptions of his apparatus, I don't believe he had the capability to actually measure the loss rate.